Execution of Sheikh Nimr: A Declaration of War for Sectarianism

Saudi Arabia executed 47 individuals on January 2, either by firing squad or beheading. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch condemned this act, deeming the trials unfair and politically motivated. The executions in Saudi Arabia, and in any other country, should be condemned from a human rights perspective. Human rights is a universal idea. No country can consider the condemnation of systematic human rights violations as interference in its internal affairs. Defending human rights and condemning violations should not be subject to the double standards of governments that justify or ignore human rights violations by themselves and their allies while only condemning those by their adversaries. The hypocrisy is not limited to governments; individuals, groups, and professions also unfortunately deal with human rights violations with double standards. Clerics are the best witnesses to this claim. They had long stirred a wide uproar against the death sentence of Sheikh Nimr. Saudi Arabia executed 47 people, four of whom were Shia, while the rest were Sunni. Why is the sensitivity of the clerics, seminaries, and leaders of the Islamic Republic only focused on Shia, and most notably on 'Ayatollah Sheikh Baqir Nimr'? The clerical rule and sectarian defense are clearly exposed here. This judgment also applies to 'Ayatollah Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaky' of Nigeria. If clerics had closed seminaries or at least issued statements for the killing of non-Muslims, they would not have been accused of sectarianism. The Islamic Republic is a clerical monarchy. Clerics spare no effort in defending their profession abroad, as long as they have a close connection with the Islamic Republic and the Supreme Leader. What difference does the blood of Sheikh Nimr have with the blood of thousands of innocent people who fell victim to terrorism and violence worldwide in 2015? Why did seminaries not close when a Christian man and woman were burned? The record of clerics regarding human rights is dark. They should first look at their 37-year legacy and see what they have done to rivals, critics, and opponents. At the regional and global level, they have dealt with this issue in a sectarian and factional manner. Shia and Sunni are two responses to the call of the Prophet of Islam. Shia, Sunni, and Wahhabi Islam are turning their latent powers into actuality. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan—according to his office, benevolently, not with bad intent—defends a Hitlerian model. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, and others have spared no effort in discrediting Islam. When they disgrace the Prophet of Islam in this way, why do they speak of Western Islamophobia and object to it? Those who still hold dear the call of Muhammad ibn Abdullah know well that they must transcend Shia, Sunni, and Wahhabism. One cannot defend Islam with the Shia, Sunni, and Wahhabi constructs that have been built throughout history. The current religious disputes are destroying Islam and Muslims. Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic systematically violate human rights. These two countries have taken dangerous actions in their regional power competition. This year, several hundred Iranian pilgrims were killed during Hajj. What was Iran's reaction? Alongside rhetoric, a calculated restraint was displayed. Now, due to the execution of Ayatollah Sheikh Nimr, the Saudi embassy in Tehran has been attacked and set on fire. The embassy of any country in another country is considered the soil of that country. Attacking an embassy and setting it on fire is tantamount to declaring war on that country. The 'self-directed' forces of the clerical monarchy, after the highly provocative statements and declarations of clerics and court mullahs, set the Saudi embassy on fire. This very dangerous act washed the bloody hands of the Al Saud family with clear water. In terms of international relations, that is, from a diplomatic rights perspective, Saudi Arabia emerged victorious in this story. No government or institution endorses the attack on any embassy for any reason. If it is about financial damage, firstly: these costs are worth no more than the price of an ice cream for Saudi Arabia. Secondly: Iran must fully pay the incurred damages. However, the Sultan, the clerics, and their self-directed forces worked in favor of Saudi Arabia regionally and internationally. This act is by no means a display of power; it showcases weakness. This means the regime must admit that it is unable to maintain the security of places it is obligated to secure under international commitments. Ayatollah Khamenei, who constantly speaks of the influence of enemies and infiltrators, can now see who the real infiltrators are that are humiliating Iran on the global stage. If identifying the infiltrators is difficult for him, he should better look in the mirror.